Fetterman Slams Dems ‘Jim Crow 2.0’ Voter ID Lies As GOP Pushes SAVE Act
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The legislative battle over the Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act has taken a surprising turn as Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) publicly distanced himself from the fiery rhetoric of his party's leadership. In a break from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Fetterman signaled that he does not view photo identification requirements as an unreasonable burden on the electorate.
Breaking the "Jim Crow 2.0" Narrative
Senator Schumer and high-ranking Democrats have frequently branded the SAVE Act as "Jim Crow 2.0," arguing that its requirements—including proof of citizenship for registration and mandatory photo ID—are designed to disenfranchise voters. Fetterman, however, told reporters that such historical comparisons are misplaced.
“I would never refer to the SAVE Act as like Jim Crow 2.0 or some kind of mass conspiracy,” Fetterman said. “I don’t call people names or imply that it’s something gross about the terrible history of Jim Crow.”
Fetterman cited recent polling to support his stance, noting that 84% of Americans—a figure supported by recent Gallup and Pew Research data—favor requiring photo identification to vote. This support is notably broad, including:
95% of Republicans
69% of Democrats
84% of Independents
“It’s not like a radical idea,” Fetterman added, pointing out that many states already successfully implement basic ID requirements.
The "Byrd Bath" Maneuver
Despite Fetterman's rhetorical shift, the SAVE Act remains stalled under the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold. With Republicans holding 53 seats, they remain seven votes short of the supermajority needed to bypass Democratic opposition.
To break the deadlock, Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) is urging GOP leadership to utilize budget reconciliation. This parliamentary process would allow the bill to pass with a simple majority of 51 votes, effectively bypassing the filibuster. Under this scenario, a unified Republican caucus would only need Vice President JD Vance to cast a tie-breaking vote.
However, the strategy requires the bill to survive a "Byrd bath"—a rigorous review by the Senate parliamentarian to ensure every provision has a direct impact on federal spending or revenue. Kennedy has called for "smart lawyers" to craft a version of the SAVE Act that ties voter verification directly to federal budgetary outlays for election administration.
Restoring Public Trust
The SAVE Act, which has received vocal support from President Donald Trump, aims to:
Require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship (such as a passport or birth certificate) to register for federal elections.
Mandate photo identification at all polling places.
Restrict mail-in ballots to specific exceptions like military service or disability.
While critics argue that non-citizen voting is statistically rare and that stricter rules could burden low-income or elderly voters, proponents insist the measures are essential for restoring trust in the democratic process.
WATCH:
As the 2026 midterm elections approach, the focus now shifts to the Senate parliamentarian. If the SAVE Act is cleared for the reconciliation process, it could represent the most significant shift in federal voting law in decades—passed entirely on party lines.
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
